Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'cpars'.
Federal Register :: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Requiring Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (DFARS Case 2020-D008)
Is anyone aware of the existence of any studies connecting the adjustment of key variables in the source selection process to improvements in acquisition outcomes? After digging around, so far the only one I was able to find was a DEC2015 NPS report entitled, "RELATIONSHIP OF SOURCE SELECTION METHODS TO CONTRACT OUTCOMES: AN ANALYSIS OF AIR FORCE SOURCE SELECTION." It is actually very good and useful; but it would be great if there was any more out there. Also- is anything like this being pursued as a research topic at any traditional universities? In other words, are there any non-DoD/Agency schools out there pursuing this in a traditional economics department? Operations Research? If done properly and comprehensively I could see the results of research such as this saving a lot of money and time- while improving performance.
All I received a CPARS that was not so favorable. I schedule a meeting with the contracting officer and discussed and most of the rating areas we were able to get worked out. The one area for which we couldn't reach agreement was schedule. During the rating period there were quality issues identified during production related to parts received from a supplier during the last three months of the contract. We identified the problem with the part and notified the government right away that there was an issue and that we were performing root cause analysis and finding a work around but that this issue would delay deliveries. We found an agreeable work around and submitted a revised schedule which basically pushed everything out 30 days. We asked for and received a schedule modification in accordance with the plan and offered/paid consideration which was accepted by the government. At CPARS my company received a "marginal" rating on schedule because of this. My argument is that we delivered to the modified schedule. Since the contract was modified there were officially no late deliveries. The government contends that for legal purposes the deliveries were on time but the modification to contract doesn't erase our late deliveries from their memories which allows them to rate accordingly for CPARS. I responded then that there is very little incentive for a contractor to pay consideration for date changes if they still get dings on past performance. Additionally, the government PM argued that the marginal rating was given because the issue effected all of the contracts remaining deliveries. I informed that given the number of remaining months to contract, and our maximum production capacity, there was no way for us to recover without impacting the balance of the schedule. For example. Say the contract was for 85 units per month and our maximum capacity was 100 with no fails or reworks, it would be impossible for us to get back on schedule with only 3 months remaining on the contract. Even if everything went perfectly, the best we could do is shave two weeks off the final delivery month. The entire argument seems illogical to me. The CPARS has been revised but this schedule ding remains. It just doesn't seem right to me. Is there any reference on schedule ratings when there have been delivery date changes.